|
Archives
- December, 2004
Contemplating the Quiet – December
21, 2004
For those of us in the northern hemisphere, this is the
Winter Solstice. The word “solstice” means “sun standing
still”. At such a busy time of the year, it might be a good idea to
be still for a few moments, to watch the planet be quiet and
rebuild for the coming year. I hope that you may be touched by the
grace of the quiet space of winter this season...and that the planet
may experience peace and environmental stewardship in the coming year.
Posted: 2004/12/21
8:50 PM
Understanding Creativity – December 7, 2004
I have long been interested in creativity – forming a broad-based
definition of the term, understanding what makes some people live their
lives more creatively than others and discovering what conditions and
traits optimize creativity. I believe that, although the “creative
personality” is a complex one and some people have innate (genetic)
talent in certain fields, everyone has the capacity to be creative and creativity isn’t limited to the arts.
Years ago, I began a list of things that I think
nurture creativity. I’ve added and subtracted from it and had
arguments about the validity of some of the items...as well as arguments
about things I’ve left off. The list includes: being comfortable
breaking rules and taking risks; curiosity and willingness to explore,
ask questions and seek new challenges; determination to create one’s
own life on one’s own terms; ability to focus; hard work (which
includes practice and routine); being comfortable with solitude;
and bravery (which includes stubbornness in the face of criticism or
failure). There are other
things that support and enhance the creative experience, like surrounding yourself with supportive people and avoiding
negativity, a “muse”, a stimulating “working” environment
(Virginia Woolf’s room of one’s own), having the necessities of
life, recognition and acceptance in one’s chosen field. But I don’t believe
these things are absolutely crucial to creativity. People who think and live creatively are
found doing all sorts of work, living in all sorts of situations. Some
have found fame in their creative expression; others haven’t...and
many don’t seek it.
I’ve enjoyed and been
inspired by Julia Cameron’s bestselling Artist’s Way books,
including Walking in This World – The Practical Art of
Creativity (2003, Jeremy P. Tarcher). But recently, I discovered Creativity:
Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (1997, Perennial
Books) by the brilliant author and psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
He studied 91 creative and influential people, including novelists,
playwrights, composers, musicians, scientists, actors, economists and
philosophers. And he concluded that creativity in any realm involves the
same skill set: dedication, hard work, actively seeking new challenges,
persistence and boldness. Maybe I like this book so much because
Csikszentmihalyi agrees with my thesis: “Each person has,” he says,
“...all the psychic energy he or she needs to live a creative life.”
And what is the difference between those who use that energy and those
who don’t? In my 25 years of observing kids who have educated
themselves without attending school, I have noted that their lives are
more conducive to nurturing creativity than those whose days are spent
passively being told what to do, think and learn.
Posted: 2004/12/07
11:23 AM
Rocking the Greenwash Boat – December 6, 2004
As public concern about the
state of our environment increases,
corporations are cozying up to green causes and organizations, hoping to
paint themselves a bright shade of green. The environment groups, most of which are chronically under-funded, are glad for the
attention and cash. And, as a result, some companies are being inspired
(and pushed) to behave in a more socially acceptable manner. However, in the rush for positive
PR, the greenwash can be hard to sort from the virtue. So it was
probably inevitable that the ethics of some environment groups would be
attacked for being too cozy with their corporate donors. However, it’s
interesting that the attack comes from within the environmental movement
by way of a controversial article published in the November-December
issue of World Watch, the magazine published by the Washington
D.C.-based Worldwatch Institute.
The article “A Challenge to Conservationists”
is a scathing attack on the so-called “Big Three” environmental
groups – World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Conservation International and the
Nature Conservancy. Author Mac Chapin, an anthropologist who has worked
with indigenous people for 35 years, writes, “The large international
[groups] are allying themselves with forces that are destroying the
world’s remaining ecosystems while ignoring or even opposing those
forces that are attempting to save them from destruction.” His lengthy
and detailed article is available
online (for free, at least for now.)
The article prompted World Watch to publish
an Editor’s Note promising that the groups would get a chance to
respond in the upcoming January-February issue. But, ironically, it
seems to have brought out the worst at the Worldwatch Institute. Rumor
has it that Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin originally okayed
the piece, then changed his mind after realizing that WWF President
Kathryn Fuller, who is featured in the article, chairs the board of the
Ford Foundation, to which Worldwatch had recently submitted a grant
proposal. Since the magazine had gone to press, so the story goes,
Flavin apparently ordered the printer to destroy the magazines. Editor Ed Ayres is
said to have intervened and the magazines went out. But he has hastened
his planned retirement in response.
This is not the first time the 50-year-old Nature
Conservancy has been attacked for being too big, too rich and too close to its
donors. In May of 2003, the Washington Post (which also
commented on this latest attack) reported that the group,
which purchases wilderness land to
protect it from development, may have compromised its mission by working
too closely with corporations. It has $1 billion in revenue and 3,200
staff members in all fifty US states and 30 countries, partially
supported by 1,900 corporate sponsors. Its strategy, like that of some
other environment groups, has been to cultivate relationships with
businesses as a way of encouraging environmentally friendly practices
rather than insisting on pristine land preservation. Executives and
directors from oil companies, chemical producers, auto manufacturers,
mining concerns, logging operations and electric utilities are on its
board. They, their companies and government policy decisions that relate
to them have been largely immune to criticism from the Conservancy.
So the bottom
line? Don’t assume anything about the practices and ethics of any
organization or company, seemingly green or otherwise. Research them
before you give them your money.
Posted: 2004/12/06
12:34 PM
Hyper-parenting
and its Backlash – December 3, 2004
You have to know that when two large, mainstream magazines write about
something at the same time, there is a trend underway. And now, Canadian
newsmagazine Maclean’s and
Psychology Today are both raising the
alarm that overparenting is harming kids. The cover story in the
November 22 issue of Maclean’s is entitled “Stressed Out!”.
It describes what it calls a “radical movement” that is saying no to
preschool tutoring, flashcards and organized sports, that is letting
kids be kids again and even allowing them to be bored sometimes. The
trend that American psychiatrist Alvin Rosenfeld calls
“hyper-parenting” – fretting that kids won’t be able to keep up
in an increasingly globalized job market, subjecting kids to formal
education at increasingly younger ages, pushing education as the focus
of play and toys – has been around for awhile now. Even as more
research surfaces to say that, for instance, early readers hold no
long-term advantage over late readers, hyper-parents keep frantically
trying to teach their babies to read.
Now,
I don’t imagine a hyper-anything turns into its laid-back opposite
very easily. And true to form, hyper-parents will do the backlash with
fervor. It apparently already has its movement manifesto – Muffy
Mead-Ferro’s book Confessions of a Slacker Mom (Da
Capo Lifelong, 2004). (Slacker moms – do we detect a touch of guilt in
that term? – say No to parenting philosophies that undermine parents’
and children’s ability to think for themselves.) And, of course, every trend and
counter-trend has its accompanying industry, this one involving an
alarmingly large body of products and services dedicated to de-stressing kids’ lives, from seminars teaching parents how to back
off, to yoga classes for kids.
Ironically,
hyper-parents may be in danger of making the cure worse than the
ailment. Maclean’s author Sue Ferguson asks the rhetorical
question: “Are we really capable of hands-off parenting?” And
perhaps many of us aren’t, because along with pressuring their kids to
perform, parents are, according to the November/December issue of Psychology
Today, “going to ludicrous lengths to take the lumps and bumps out
of life for their children.” This generation of parents seems so
invested in their kids that if they’re not pushing they’re pulling.
In the Psychology Today piece, which is entitled “A Nation of
Wimps”, Hara Estroff Marano writes, “However well-intentioned,
parental hyperconcern and microscrutiny have the net effect of making
kids more fragile.” Part of the modus operandi of hyper-parents is to
protect their kids, to take all the discomfort and disappointment out
their children’s lives. So...these parents push and prod and pressure
their kids, and then take away all opportunity to learn coping skills
and, as a result, make them risk-adverse. In their desire to help their
kids succeed, hyper-parents are setting them up to do just the opposite.
What
a pressure cooker! No wonder that anxiety is the most common cause of
childhood psychological disorders, affecting approximately 20 percent of
North American children. The Psychology Today piece quotes one
child as telling his psychologist, “I wish my parents had some hobby
other than me.”
Well, even though the big
magazines are writing about the subject (and my own Life Learning
magazine – dedicated to helping parents let their kids have the space
to learn – is steadily increasing its readership), I’m probably being
too optimistic to think this backlash against hyper-parenting is gaining
huge speed. Psychology Today’s writes, “Messing up, even in
the playground, is wildly out of style. Although error and
experimentation are the true mothers of success, parents are taking
pains to remove failure from the equation.” I guess there is a long
distance between knowing something and putting it into practice.
Posted: 2004/12/03
4:27 PM
Valuing
Young People – December 1, 2004
“We don’t need no education, we
don’t need no thought control, no
dark sarcasm in the classroom – teachers leave them kids alone.”
The lyrics on the 1979 Pink Floyd classic Another Brick in the Wall
became an anthem for teens, but the 23 teens who actually sang the words
on the album experienced some fallout.
The students secretly recorded the
vocals with the help of their music teacher Alun Renshaw. He took them
to a nearby recording studio without the permission of the British
school’s headmistress,
after being approached by the band’s management. On hearing the song,
the headmistress banned the pupils from appearing on television or video
in connection with the song. And the local school authority described the lyrics as “scandalous”.
The school was paid 1,000 pounds and
later given a platinum record of the song but the individuals involved were never paid.
Now that, I think, is the scandalous part! It shows just how undervalued
young people were, and continued to be. But now, one of those former students has engaged a
royalties expert to claim unpaid royalties on behalf of the whole group.
They are not suing the band; instead, they are taking advantage of a
royalty fund established under British copyright law.
Music teacher Renshaw told a British newspaper that he accepted the
band’s offer because he viewed it as “an
interesting sociological thing and also a wonderful opportunity for the
kids to work in a live recording studio. I sort of mentioned it to the
headteacher, but didn’t give her a piece of paper with the lyrics on
it.” Good for him for understanding that learning happens from real
life!
The album sold over 12 million copies
and the single became No. 1 in Britain and the U.S. And I imagine the
lyrics are still scandalizing many people, aside from the appalling
grammar.
Posted: 2004/12/01
1:17 PM
|
